Ummm...about that Fourth Amendment thingy (Political)

[Stu Gotz]

Since we haven't had a good political donneybrook in a while......let's do this.

Leeerrrrrrroooooyyyyy Jeeeennnkins.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10488458/

I will make the statement that this policy should be indefensible to anybody but the most egregious Bush fluffers. The national security justifications are absurd--how hard do you think it is to get a warrant if you have any reason to believe that you're monitoring terrorist activity? This represents a classic test for conservertarians; I concede the point of how you define libertarianism is up for debate, but I'm going to say that "boundless, arbitrary executive power" is not compatible with any version. (Nor, of course, is it compatible with any kind of liberal democracy.)

[ill-advised strategy]

this thread is going to be cruel and unusual punishment.

[MeatPuppet]

Since we haven't had a good political donneybrook in a while......let's do this.

Leeerrrrrrroooooyyyyy Jeeeennnkins.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10488458/

I will make the statement that this policy should be indefensible to anybody but the most egregious Bush fluffers. The national security justifications are absurd--how hard do you think it is to get a warrant if you have any reason to believe that you're monitoring terrorist activity? This represents a classic test for conservertarians; I concede the point of how you define libertarianism is up for debate, but I'm going to say that "boundless, arbitrary executive power" is not compatible with any version. (Nor, of course, is it compatible with any kind of liberal democracy.)

Well,there's a lot about this that just stinks to high heaven. The first is this article and others like it. Here's an example.

“There is no doubt that this is inappropriate,” said Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He said there would be hearings early next year and that they would have “a very, very high priority.”

I don't know if this is incompetence on the part of the reporter or an intentional effort to mislead the readers. I heard Arlen Specter give the speech that this quote was taken from. What he said was something to the effect of "If these allegations are shown to be true, and this administration did indeed bypass due process in order to spy on American citizens, then...<insert quote from MSN>". Arlen Specrer did utter the words “There is no doubt that this is inappropriate,”. but it is taken out of context so badly that the quote is meaningless and makes the whole article suspect.

As to the article in the NYTimes where these allegations are first made;

The whole thing revolves around these things being done in "secret" and the proper authorities not being notified ahead of time. OK, could somebody please define "secret"? How could anyhting be called "secret" when the white house had briefed congressional leaders about the program and notified the judge in charge of the foreign intelligence surveillance court. The FISC was created in 1978 by Jimmy Carter. It's sole purpose is to allow due process in matters that can't, for national security reasons, be made known to the public. This is nothing new. The only thing that is new is that the Patriot Act was up for renewal and James Risen, the author of the original NYTimes article and a staunch Bush hater, has a book coming out in two weeks. Risen sat on this information for a year BTW. If it was so important, why did it take a year for him to make it public?

[Stu Gotz]

Risen sat on this information for a year BTW. If it was so important, why did it take a year for him to make it public?

That damn liberal rag the New York Times....eeer wait a minute here.

"The White House asked The New York Times not to publish this article, arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting. Some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted."

And if Judy Miller pimpin' for the White House wasn't bad enough. Would the Wall Street Journal have extended that courtesy to a Democratic president?

[Arty50]

Side bar:

Would the Wall Street Journal have extended that courtesy to a Democratic president?

Do people read anything besides the editorial section anymore? It's probably the worst part of every paper. I'm asking this because the rest of the WSJ, the heart of the paper, is far from the conservative rag it's portrayed to be. It's a great paper, and I wish people would judge it based on other criteria besides its opinion section.

[MeatPuppet]

"The White House asked The New York Times not to publish this article, arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting. Some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted."

And if Judy Miller pimpin' for the White House wasn't bad enough. Would the Wall Street Journal have extended that courtesy to a Democratic president?

You call covering up a massive violation of civil rights a "courtesy"? What is that, honor among thieves?

One of two things is true; Either the administration is involved in wrong doing, in this matter, or it isn't. Risen would have you believe there was wrong doing. If that is true, and Risen sat on it for a year(The administration asked him to cover up a massive violation of civil rights, and he did.), doesn't that make him an accomplice(if you have knowledge that a crime has taken place and you fail to report it, in many instances, you can be charged as an accomplice to that crime.)? Or, there is no wrong doing here and Risen is leading us to believe something that isn't true. In which case he sat on this story for a year until he could generate some personal gain by releasing it now(i.e. his new book on this topic due to be relesed in two weeks). So, he's either an accomplice to a massive violation of American civil rights, or he's intentionally misleading people for personal gain. Either way, something stinks.

[mr_gyptian]

First of all, they were monitering phone numbers and email addresses that were on captured cell phones and lap tops when people like Abu Zubaydah were apprehended. Second, this isn't only on the administration's head. leaders in congress on both sides of the aisle were briefed constantly on the goings on of this program.

however as far as violations of the fourth amendment go. this could very well have legs.

in other news: Iraqi's had another election two days ago.

[Arty50]

From Bush's full speech:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/17/bush.text.ap/

"Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies, and endangers our country."

My question to Mr. Bush:
What's more egregious: revealing classified information or blatantly violating the 4th Amendment?

[AKA]

From Bush's full speech:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/17/bush.text.ap/

"Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies, and endangers our country."

My question to Mr. Bush:
What's more egregious: revealing classified information or blatantly violating the 4th Amendment?

w:"egregious? I really dont know what large wading birds have to do with the 4th Amendment."

[Mott the Hoople]

By JENNIFER LOVEN
Associated Press Writer
Dec 17 10:40 AM US/Eastern

WASHINGTON - President Bush said Saturday he personally has authorized a secret eavesdropping program in the U.S. more than 30 times since the Sept. 11 attacks and he lashed out at those involved in publicly revealing the program. "This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security," he said in a radio address delivered live from the White House's Roosevelt Room.




"This authorization is a vital tool in our war against the terrorists. It is critical to saving American lives. The American people expect me to do everything in my power, under our laws and Constitution, to protect them and their civil liberties and that is exactly what I will continue to do as long as I am president of the United States," Bush said.

Angry members of Congress have demanded an explanation of the program, first revealed in Friday's New York Times and whether the monitoring by the National Security Agency violates civil liberties.

Defending the program, Bush said in his address that it is used only to intercept the international communications of people inside the United States who have been determined to have "a clear link" to al- Qaida or related terrorist organizations.

He said the program is reviewed every 45 days, using fresh threat assessments, legal reviews by the Justice Department, White House counsel and others, and information from previous activities under the program.

Without identifying specific lawmakers, Bush said congressional leaders have been briefed more than a dozen times on the program's activities.

The president also said the intelligence officials involved in the monitoring receive extensive training to make sure civil liberties are not violated.

Appearing angry at times during his eight-minute address, Bush left no doubt that he will continue authorizing the program.

"I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al-Qaida and related groups," he said.

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
And some more............
Newspaper fails to inform readers "news break" is tied to book publication

On the front page of today's NEW YORK TIMES, national security reporter James Risen claims that "months after the September 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States... without the court approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials."

Risen claims the White House asked the paper not to publish the article, saying that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny.

Risen claims the TIMES delayed publication of the article for a year to conduct additional reporting.

But now comes word James Risen's article is only one of many "explosive newsbreaking" stories that can be found -- in his upcoming book -- which he turned in 3 months ago!

The paper failed to reveal the urgent story was tied to a book release and sale.

The NY Times is not even good asswipe anymore.

[mr_gyptian]

From Bush's full speech:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/17/bush.text.ap/

"Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies, and endangers our country."

My question to Mr. Bush:
What's more egregious: revealing classified information or blatantly violating the 4th Amendment?

in lieu of Plamegate whomever leaked this to the NYT, probably at the NSA, will get skewered. that is unless it was sandy berger. Anywho, this type of surveillence is excepted.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...1----000-.html

Furthermore this type of law is so very murky. The fact being most of the tapping was going on from overseas. It'll be interesting how this hashes out.

but to answer your question Arty. Right now the NYT is more concerned with it hurting the Bush administration. last was plamegate and leaking classified information was the cause of the day. this week it is violating the fourth amendment and implicating the administration. When in fact not only is it not clearly a violation(based upon the above), but it was a bipartisan effort.

at any rate, how this is all handled will be extremely interesting. quite a few implications regarding both domestic and international law. heady times, my man, heady times.

[Stu Gotz]

I will cede the point to Mr. G about the law being murky at best.

But what really chafes my ass about the administration is that they are lazy. When pressed with a difficult task, they look to weaken the constitution (and just about every international treaty) and hide behind "Presidential Prerogative." How hard would it have been to stay within the confines of the law and get a court issued warrant for this surveillance.

This note is from Andrew Sullivan and it discusses torture, but it could as easily cover the NSA shenanigans, lack of due process for american citizens labeled terrorists, etc. etc.

"The only observation I felt your essay lacked is this: Torture is the tool of the slothful. The main attraction to those who defend the use of torture is how easily and quickly a suspect can be broken. Unlike other forms of interrogation, torture requires only a small amount of training, no particular understanding of the suspect, and scant concern for the veracity of what is revealed. It requires only the willingness to do to another human being what one would not do to an animal. Understanding torture as the lazy person’s tool makes it a bit more comprehensible why the Bush Administration would be the first in American history to defend the practice."

[mr_gyptian]

I will cede the point to Mr. G about the law being murky at best.

But what really chafes my ass about the administration is that they are lazy. When pressed with a difficult task, they look to weaken the constitution (and just about every international treaty) and hide behind "Presidential Prerogative." How hard would it have been to stay within the confines of the law and get a court issued warrant for this surveillance.

This note is from Andrew Sullivan and it discusses torture, but it could as easily cover the NSA shenanigans, lack of due process for american citizens labeled terrorists, etc. etc.

"The only observation I felt your essay lacked is this: Torture is the tool of the slothful. The main attraction to those who defend the use of torture is how easily and quickly a suspect can be broken. Unlike other forms of interrogation, torture requires only a small amount of training, no particular understanding of the suspect, and scant concern for the veracity of what is revealed. It requires only the willingness to do to another human being what one would not do to an animal. Understanding torture as the lazy person’s tool makes it a bit more comprehensible why the Bush Administration would be the first in American history to defend the practice."

is that what he said this week? It's the padded room so I'm going to go ahead and say this. His AIDS meds have made him crazy. I used to read him daily and he has fallen off the wagon as of about two years ago.

What I was stressing also is that it isn't just the administration. They briefed the SIC constantly. additionally the Foreign Inteligence Security Act permits the government to monitor foreign communications, even if they are with U.S. citizens -- 50 USC 1801, et seq(I linked this in my above). A FISA warrant is only needed if the subject communications are wholly contained in the United States and involve a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.

not that it isn't surprising to me that the NYT didn't do its research on this. I'm beginning to wonder if they've got anyone at the paper that can disect anything this complicated.